The state of Florida recently passed a new rule governing the implementation and evaluation of teacher preparation programs. The Florida Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (FACTE) was very active during the development and public comment periods for this new rule, and while we did not secure all the changes we’d hoped, we did make a difference in the process and in the outcomes.

FACTE implemented a detailed advocacy strategy during the public comment period. One of our greatest assets was our relationship with the Florida Department of Education (FDOE), which has always worked to be partners with our programs. I cannot speak enough of the importance of building relationships with those charged with program approval before you are in the process of rule development. We have focused our efforts on building on our shared vision of ensuring every child in the state is taught by a high-quality educator.

With high rates of retirement by an aging teaching force and continuing growth in school enrollments, we as a nation need more than ever to focus on how, where, and how well we prepare our future educators. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the need to move on those issues. But one of its proposed solutions, in the form of regulations for evaluating the quality of higher-education programs that prepare elementary and secondary school teachers, could take us down a hazardous track.

Is there a difference in teacher persistence in urban districts attributable to specific pathways? Why do teachers say they persist in urban districts? Researchers from Kean University, Rowan University, and William Paterson University came together to explore these and other related questions as part of the AACTE Research Fellowship.

The recent release of proposed federal reporting requirements for educator preparation programs stirred up intense interest in the methods and metrics used to evaluate programs. As many people noted in their letters of comment to the U.S. Department of Education earlier this month, several of the proposed new measures are unprecedented and would require investment of significant time and money to collect, analyze, and report data on an annual basis.

With the February 2 deadline fast approaching to comment on the proposed federal regulations for teacher preparation programs, the North Dakota Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NDACTE) has wasted no time in developing comments and reaching out to our state officials to express our concerns with the proposed regulations. As questions and concerns mount regarding the proposed regulations, the members of NDACTE felt it was necessary to discuss them with officials in our state.

Before we all head to Atlanta for AACTE’s 67th Annual Meeting, I asked a few past attendees to share tips for what to do at the event. Here’s some useful guidance from Jennifer Waddell, associate director of the Institute for Urban Education at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

With an intention of generating 100,000 comments to the U.S. Department of Education on its proposed regulations for teacher preparation programs, the members of the AACTE Committee on Government Relations and Advocacy are leading the charge with a Twitter campaign to spread awareness of the proposed regulations.

Remember, the deadline to comment is February 2, and the teacher preparation profession’s voice must be heard! (See AACTE’s regulations web page for more information.)

Please join our Twitter campaign at #EDregs to help us reach out to colleagues, public officials, students, organizations, and the public to help generate more conversation on Twitter about the regulations—leading, we hope, to more comments submitted to the government.

Academic leaders in teacher education are currently faced with unprecedented policy pressures related to collecting, reporting, and acting on an intensifying array of program outcome measures. Moreover, many of the state and federal policies driving these pressures are saturated with paradox, attempting to address multiple and often contradictory goals. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is related to the essential tension between policy goals related to identifying and eliminating “low-performing programs,” and those related to “program improvement.” Coping with contradictory discourses and policies related to accountability, program improvement, and “data use” has become one of the facts of life experienced by virtually all contemporary teacher educators.

We have an opportunity to make our voices heard. Though the proposed federal regulations for teacher preparation programs were released for comment most inconveniently during the hurly burly of exams and the holidays, I was determined to find a festive, collegial way to engage the faculty and students at my institution in contributing our knowledge and experience by February 2.

AACTE’s challenge to generate 100,000 comments inspired me. There’s no guarantee that the U.S. Department of Education will listen, of course, but an onslaught of letters will hopefully grab their attention. The question for me: How to spur people to actually read and respond to the proposal.